Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MBAs as CEOs

mintzberg.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 167 posts

Re: MBAs as CEOs

#51

Post by thegoldenchild »

Retric wrote: post #44
thegoldenchild wrote: post #25

I'm aware that HN is a pro-engineering, anti-MBA group of folks, but hopefully my perspective helps add a bit of color from the other side. I got a BS and MS in Computer Science and ended up working as a software engineer for a number of years. After a while, I was left wanting more, so I enrolled in an MBA program. IMO, 50-60% of classes in business school are fluff leadership rah-rah self-development bullshit. But…

The most interesting thing about MBA's is it's approval focused not success focused. If you can convince a fortune 500 company to pick you as their CEO you have already won even if the company fails because you run it into the ground. So, yes the language changes as you go up. But, so does what it means to fail.

New levels, new devils ;)

Re: MBAs as CEOs

#52

Post by 11thEarlOfMar »

An MBA doesn't make a CEO. CEOs are born, but their rise can be accelerated with an MBA.

Successful CEOs have a particular perspective and mindset that allow them to understand both the underlying value of their company, and, the business strategies that enable the value to be realized. The MBA program cannot instill this perspective and mindset. But it can fill in the gaps of knowledge that is used to realize value.

An engineering degree, coupled with product development experience, goes a long way towards developing the sense of what is valuable in a tech firm. In order for an engineer to rise to CEO and be successful, they would need to understand:

- A P&L

- A Balance Sheet

- The liability of different hiring/firing approaches

- The standard terms of different partnership and marketing contracts.

- I.e., the basic functional operation of the Legal, Financial, HR, manufacturing ops, facilities, and, importantly, Marketing & Sales.

You can learn a lot of that in business school, but I believe you can learn it well enough just by getting involved in those functions in some way and seeing how it all works together. For me, I view it like any system: functional blocks and interfaces that interact to cause profit and growth. Engineers who become successful CEOs can more or less naturally assimilate this and make solid plans and strategies.

Re: MBAs as CEOs

#53

Post by bmpafa »

simonsarris wrote: post #3

I know its popular to hate on Peter Thiel here but I think he's been right about this cohort for a long time, and that its not really surprising. Emphasis mine: > I think one challenge a lot of the business schools have is they end up attracting students who are very extroverted and have very low conviction, and they put them in this hot house environment for a few years — at the end of which, a large number of peopl…

I have an MBA from one of the top 3 programs, and I see a lot of evidence to support this, but I disagree that it's a lack of conviction.

I came from a diff't background than most of my classmates, but the sense I got was that, for a lot of them, life was a series of clearly defined competitions & steps. I took to calling it the Gilded Pipeline, but in general, it was ivy undergrad -> banking/consulting -> private equity -> MBA -> ???.

The '???' triggered a surprising # of identity crises. A lot of people felt they'd had a clear way ahead their entire lives, and now there was no clear goal in the horizon.

Most of them had strong convictions--from community work to personal beliefs to long-term goals--at least as strong as the general pop., I'd argue. But give anyone $100k of student debt & the promise of exit options galore, and I'd wager most would take the 'last big thing.'

Re: MBAs as CEOs

#54

Post by maxxxxx »

ajmurmann wrote: post #39
maxxxxx wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"very extroverted and have very low conviction" I see that a lot in middle management in my company. There is this whole layer of people who are really good at going along with trends but can't make up their mind when hard decisions have to be made. As soon as someone else makes that decision they jump on the bandwagon again and take credit. It seems a really good way to climb the corporate ladder.

I wouldn't necessarily explain this by properties of the individual middle manager. Middle management frequently had very little decision making power and it's their job to represent "the company's" decisions to their reports. In many organizations they are also heavily discouraged from taking any risks and frequently function as scape goats for bad decisions higher ups made. So even if someone in middle management s…

There are middle managers who take a position and tell you. They may not always get their way but at least you know where they are at. But I also see a lot people who take no position, call meetings all day, don't contribute anything concrete but in the end still manage to get credit.

Re: MBAs as CEOs

#55

Post by id122015 »

When people chase the money they end up becoming doctors and then chopping off men's masculinity organ. Search and you will find that. Nothing new.

Downvoting should be illegal, I know..

Re: MBAs as CEOs

#56

Post by _m8fo »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #12
alphonsegaston wrote: post #10

I think it's more useful to think of MBAs as ordination into something like the Jesuits of American Corporatism. Late Capitalism in the US has evolved in such an obviously unequal and environmentally dangerous way that the only recourse we have is to a kind of "mystical" rhetoric. In this kind of system, being some kind of guru is just as important, if not more, than one's actual business acumen. Hence all the TED ta…

That's spot on and incredibly unsettling. I come from a conservative religious background and I'm genuinely creeped out by the mythologies that surround companies. I think there are a ton of parallels between today's business leaders and megachurch pastors. There's similarities in the way they build brands, the way followers reverently speak of them, assume they do no wrong, are willing to defend them, and the cognit…

I completely agree. The amount of megacorp apologists on here is deeply disturbing to me. No matter what happens, there's always someone willing to apologize for them. Business seems to be the new religion.

Re: MBAs as CEOs

#57

Post by marze »

What can you say? They suck.

On the other hand, it might make a nice long term investment strategy, and alternative to the S&P 500 index fund. Buy stock in 200 non-MBA led firms and hold for 15 years.

Re: MBAs as CEOs

#58

Post by tensor »

thegoldenchild wrote: post #41
mdorazio wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of the "valuable" set of classes, what % would you have only been able to attend/learn from in an MBA program? I was accepted to several top MBA programs and decided not to go for a variety of reasons, including that virtually all of the classwork was things I had already learned or could easily learn via online coursework or community college without spending a quarter of a million dollars.

There's nothing stopping you from learning everything on your own. BUT you miss out on the MBA network. When you're forced to spend 2 years with a cohort of 75-100 people, you develop a close-knit bond when you spend most of your time eating, drinking, studying (and sometimes sleeping) with these people. If I want a job at a company that one of my MBA classmates works at, an interview is literally one phone call away…

I realize the network effect is positive for you, but I think it's negative for the world at large. One would hope that hires would be merit based, not simply that your are friends in the MBA club.

Re: MBAs as CEOs

#59

Post by bmpafa »

alphonsegaston wrote: post #10

I think it's more useful to think of MBAs as ordination into something like the Jesuits of American Corporatism. Late Capitalism in the US has evolved in such an obviously unequal and environmentally dangerous way that the only recourse we have is to a kind of "mystical" rhetoric. In this kind of system, being some kind of guru is just as important, if not more, than one's actual business acumen. Hence all the TED ta…

I'm an MBA & startup founder, and I don't think it's fair to suggest this is an MBA-only thing. Talk to any startup co-founder or early-stage employee, and tell him/her that Lean Startup principles are wrong, or that VC $ is never worth it, or that Tim Ferriss (PBUH) should work longer hours--I'm certain they'd get just as dogmatic as you suggest MBAs are about capitalism.

MBA teachings are useful in the same way that any guru's lessons find a following: they offer a general framework for tackling large, ambiguous problems that would otherwise feel intractable.

Re: MBAs as CEOs

#60

Post by digikata »

thegoldenchild wrote: post #25

I'm aware that HN is a pro-engineering, anti-MBA group of folks, but hopefully my perspective helps add a bit of color from the other side. I got a BS and MS in Computer Science and ended up working as a software engineer for a number of years. After a while, I was left wanting more, so I enrolled in an MBA program. IMO, 50-60% of classes in business school are fluff leadership rah-rah self-development bullshit. But…

As time has gone on, I really wonder if the canonical technical/non-technical split in leadership is really the right breakdown for companies. It frequently ends up being a risk item that leadership is so separate from the low-level revenue and cost generation activities of companies. Perhaps it would work better to distribute a lot of the administrative scaling, budgeting, type activities in favor of being more organically connected to revenue activities and the skills that can open or expand various markets.

This is basically more like how Amazon operates (and oddly enough some very stressful work-cooperative companies). It puts the ability to act closer to people that can see the opportunity... and lack of that rapid see-act cycle is hurt by the canonical hierarchy, and why large corporations (who should be the best resourced entities) seem to be the worst at starting & pursuing new ventures.

Post reply on HN